LOCALLY GROWN HEALTHY SEAFOOD KEEPING WORKING WATERFRONTS WORKING!

MAINE AQUACULTURE

• >17 DIFFERENT SPECIES• FRESH AND SALTWATER• 120-140 FARMS• $83-110 MILLION ANNUAL FARM GATE SALES• $164 – 220 MILLION TOTAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY• T0TAL LEASED AREA 1300 ACRES <0.03% ME WATERS

(31 FINFISH 69 SHELLFISH)

• LOBSTER GEAR 17-28,000 ACRES 5-8% • RECREATIONAL MARINAS 4800 ACRES

• 2 MOST VALUABLE “CROPS” IN THE STATE ($/PER ACRE)

– FINFISH $85,906 / ACRE

– SHELLFISH $16,632 / ACRE

IT’S A SMALL LIFEBOAT AND WE ARE ALL ON IT TOGEATHER

PRINCIPLE CONCERNS REGARDING AQUACULTURE

• DISEASE

• NUTRIENTS

• ESCAPES AND INTERACTIONS

• FEED

• CHEMICALS

• SOCIAL CONFLICTS

NUTRIENT DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS IN

AQUACULTURE• ORGANIC DISCHARGE

• SOLUABLE (URINE N+)

• SOLID (FECES, FEED, BIOFOULING, N+P)

• POTENTIAL IMPACTS VARY WITH ECOSYSTEM AND LOCAL SITE CONDITIONS

PRINCIPLE CONCERNS REGARDING NUTRIENTS

• TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

• IMPACTS WELL DOCUMENTED

• ACTUAL IMPACTS VARY WITH ECOSYSTEM TYPE

• FUNCTIONAL IMPACTS SAME

SOLUABLESDissolved nutrients and algae blooms

PseudonitzschiaPseudonitzschia sp. diatomsp. diatom

21 studies over 30 years

Japan, Scotland, Chile, Canada, Norway

Dissolved Nutrients Conclusions

• 18 studies found no effect

• 3 studies found low correlation between presence of farm and algae levels

• In all 3 cases “loading” massive compared to receiving waters

• No studies definitively attributed increased algae production to farm discharges•• Except perhaps in a few enclosed waters, enrichment by fish farm nutrients is too little,

relative to natural levels, to have the alleged effects.

• Farm waste has a ratio of N to P close to natural ratios.

• Even in enclosed waters algal production from fish farm nutrients is small relative to that generated by marine and terrestrial inputs.

• Production is often limited by light not nutrients.

SOLIDSParticulates - transport

• Distribution of settling velocities from waste feed and faecal particulates

• Advection by currents variable in time and depth (shear)• Particles on the bed can be resuspended and redistributed

0 Current Velocity

Source

Coarse Medium

Fine

CLASSICAL PROGRESSION WITH INCREASED ORGANIC LOADING

• ORGANIC LOADING

• SPECIES DIVERSITY

• BIOMASS

• MACROFAUNA MICROFAUNA• AEROBIC ANAEROBIC• HYDROGEN SULPHIDE AND METHANE

Pearson and Rosenberg (1978)

Seminal paper on macrofaunal response to organic pollution gradients

• This process is amenable to modelling and several such models exist

• DEPOMOD is used operationally by SEPA

GRID GENERATION MODULEINPUT

• CAGE POSITIONS• STATION POSITIONS• BATHYMETRY

PARTICLE TRACKING MODULE

• FOOD/FAECES WITH DIFFERENT SETTLING VEL.

• ADVECTION OF PARTICLES BY CURRENTS

• REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT SHEAR

• TURBULENCE (RANDOM WALK)

INPUT

• VARY FOOD INPUT via FISH GROWTH MODEL• PARTICLE ATTRIBUTES• VELOCITY DATA

INPUT

• VALIDATED RESUSPENSION MODEL PARAMETERS(e.g. critical resuspension, depositionshear stress; erodibility constant)

BENTHIC MODULE

• BENTHIC COMMUNITY SUCCESSION LINKED TO QUANTITATIVE INPUTS OF SOLIDS

carbon/ solidsaccumulationg m-2 yr-1

underlyingsedimentlayer

bed surface

watercolumn

sea surface

IN-FEED TREATMENTS• Conc.of compound on food; % excreted

RESUSPENSION & CARBON DEGRADATION

• RESUSPENSION FROM BED

• CARBON DEGRADATION - G MODEL

GRID GENERATION MODULEINPUT

• CAGE POSITIONS• STATION POSITIONS• BATHYMETRY

PARTICLE TRACKING MODULE

• FOOD/FAECES WITH DIFFERENT SETTLING VEL.

• ADVECTION OF PARTICLES BY CURRENTS

• REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT SHEAR

• TURBULENCE (RANDOM WALK)

INPUT

• VARY FOOD INPUT via FISH GROWTH MODEL• PARTICLE ATTRIBUTES• VELOCITY DATA

INPUT

• VALIDATED RESUSPENSION MODEL PARAMETERS(e.g. critical resuspension, depositionshear stress; erodibility constant)

BENTHIC MODULE

• BENTHIC COMMUNITY SUCCESSION LINKED TO QUANTITATIVE INPUTS OF SOLIDS

carbon/ solidsaccumulationg m-2 yr-1

underlyingsedimentlayer

bed surface

watercolumn

sea surface

IN-FEED TREATMENTS• Conc.of compound on food; % excreted

RESUSPENSION & CARBON DEGRADATION

• RESUSPENSION FROM BED

• CARBON DEGRADATION - G MODEL

Cromey, C. J., Black, K. D., Edwards, A. & Jack, I. A. (1998). Modelling the deposition and biological effects of organic carbon from marine sewage discharges. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 47, 295-308.

Cromey, C. J., Nickell, T. D. & Black, K. D. (2002a). DEPOMOD - modelling the deposition and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture214, 211-239.

Cromey, C. J., Nickell, T. D., Black, K. D., Provost, P. G. & Griffiths, C. R. (2002b). Validation of a fish farm waste resuspension model by use of a particulate tracer discharged from a point source in a coastal environment. Estuaries 25, 916-929.

2.8 kg for protein

+ 0.8 - 2.3 kg extra for oil

Fish Feed40% Protein30% oil9% water1200g: N 96gP 18gC 660g

Harvest Fish1 kg

N 26gP 3.2gC 139g

Mortalities and escapes

N 1.9gP 0.4gC 13g

Particulate wastes

N 22gP 9.5gC 185g

Soluble wastesN 46gP 4.9gC 323g

Budget for the flow of nutrients from oceanic wild caught fish to the coastal environment for a harvest of 1 kg of farmed salmon assuming no substitution with vegetable protein or oil and a ratio of fish feed to product of 1.2:1

Wild fish17% protein, 7-10% oil, 75% water

DEPOMOD - Site L

A3 B3

- cages

- sediment traps

Key

Group 3

Model predictions of solids deposition from a cage group

M - position of traps A1 and B1A2 is positioned between A1 and A3B2 is positioned between B1 and B3

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Easting (m)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Nor

thin

g (m

)

A3B3M

25

500

2500

5000

15000

g solids m bed yr -2 -1DEPOMOD - Site C

g solids m bed yr -2 -1

A1 A3 B1 B3

- cage centres

- sediment traps

Key

Group 2

Model predictions of solids deposition from a cage group

A2 is positioned between A1 and A3B2 i i i d b B1 d B3

A1A3

B1B3

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Easting (m)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Nor

thin

g (m

)

25

500

2500

5000

15000

Summing flux rates for L Creran indicates that sediment oxygen demand is only about 3% of tidal supply

Fish farm contributes <10% of that demand

0

200

400

600

800

S1 S2 S3 S4m

mol

/m2 /d

Farm + background

Observed

INDIRECT IMPACTS ON OXYGEN BUDGETSINDIRECT IMPACTS ON OXYGEN BUDGETS

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500E(m)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N(m) 1 2

3

4

1.8

120

600

960

mmol/m2/d

Oxygen flux in loch Creran

•Theoretical negative oxygen impacts (benthic and water column) due to BOD•18 studies over 28 years•Japan, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, US, Norway

CLASSICAL PROGRESSION WITH INCREASED ORGANIC LOADING

• ORGANIC LOADING

• SPECIES DIVERSITY

• BIOMASS

• MACROFAUNA MICROFAUNA• AEROBIC ANAEROBIC• HYDROGEN SULPHIDE AND METHANE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Time (months of fallowing)

Oxy

gen

upta

ke (m

mol

.d-1

m-2

) st Ast Bst C

Benthic RecoveryPereira, P. M. F., Black, K. D., Mclusky, D. S. and Nickell, T. D. (in press). Recovery of

sediments after cessation of marine fish farm production. Aquaculture.

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Time (months of fallowing)

Eh (m

V)

st Ast Bst C

a) 4cm

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Time (months of fallowing)

Num

ber o

f tax

a

st Ast Bst C

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Time (months of fallowing)

Abu

ndan

ce (i

nd.m

2 )

st Ast Bst C

PRINCIPLE FACTORS INFLUENCING POTENTIAL ENVIROMENTAL IMPACTS OF

NUTRIENTS DISCHARGED FROM A NET PEN• DEPTH

• AVERAGE CURRENT SPEED

• SITE ENERGY CLASSIFICATION

• FEED FORMULATION

• FEEDING LEVELS AND METHODS

• FISH BIOMASS AND CONDITION

• LOCAL ECOSYSTEM

• BACKGROUND NUTRIENT LEVELS

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

• LOADING LEVELS AND ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY

• SITE SPECIFIC CARRYING CAPACITY

• FARM MANAGEMENT MUST BE IN TUNE WITH SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Diver-deployed stirred flux chamber

Core recovery

KEY NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT METHODS

• SITE SELECTION• FEED MANAGEMENT• PRODUCTION PLANNING • WASTE MANAGEMENT• SITE ROTATION AND FALLOWING• ANIMAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT• SPECIES ROTATIONS AND INTERCROPPING• SITE MONITORING PROGRAM

CORE MARINE FARM BMP CHARACTERISTICS

• DRIVEN BY ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGE AND INABILITY TO CONTROL ENVIRONMENT

• RISK ANALYSIS BASED

• MUST ALLOW FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

• SHOULD INCLUDE VERIFICATION

Annual aquaculture input of nitrogen and phosphorusin the coastal waters off North East North American

Coast

Year 1994 2001Salmon production (tons)

11,8361 35,0002

Nitrogen release rate (kg/ton/year)

78.03 35.04

Phosphorus release rate (kg/ton/year)

9.53 7.04

Nitrogen input in the Bay (tons/year)

923 1,225

Phosphorus input in the Bay (tons/year)

112 245

1DFO: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/stat_e.htm2Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance, pers. comm.3Ackefors and Enell (1994)

4ICES (1996)DFO (1997)Chopin et al. (2001)

MULTITROPHIC AQUACULTURE

YOU CAN’T BEAT MOTHER NATURE

MAINE AQUACULTURE KEEPING WORKING WATERFRONTS WORKING

FEEDING AMERICA SUSTAINABLY

GROWING MAINES FUTURE

GOOD JOBS - RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP - HEALTHY FOOD

Thanks

Contact MeSebastian BelleP.O. Box 148

Hallowell, ME 04347207 622 0136

MALNUTRITIONMALNUTRITIONis still the numberis still the number

one killer and one killer and cause of suffering cause of suffering

on earth;on earth;causing more causing more deaths than deaths than

HIV/AIDS, warfare, HIV/AIDS, warfare, genocide, genocide,

terrorism, or any terrorism, or any other ailment.other ailment.

TherapeutantsDate Treatment OrganismEM A CYP IVR OTC TC CHL ROM TRI

08-05-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND06-06-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND21-06-01 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

22/28-06-01 EM A11-07-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND27-07-01 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

11/17-08-01 EM A15-08-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND05-09-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND07-09-01 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

20/30-09-01 OTC10-10-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

15/23-10-01 EM A19-10-01 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

07/16-11-01 OTC4-12-01 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

12-12-01 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND09-01-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND02-02-02 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND04-04-02 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND06-05-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND05-06-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND27-06-02 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND03-07-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

19/25-07-02 EM A22-07-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND30-07-02 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND31-07-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND07-08-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND13-08-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND26-08-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND27-08-02 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND15-10-02 Laminaria ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND28-10-02 Mytilus ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

NOT

DETECTABLE

ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT SYSTEM

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INVOLVING PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION

AND ONGOING REVIEW AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

SPECIFIC SET OF OPERATIONAL STANDARDS

CODE OF PRACTICE

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

MAA COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS• PATHOGEN SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS

• INTERGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN

• CONTIANMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

• FINFISH BAY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

• COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF PRACTICE

• SHELLFISH HEALTH AND BIOSECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

• BIOSECURITY AUDITS

MAA COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

MAA CODE OF PRACTICE

MAA FINFISH BAY MANANGEMENT AGREEMENT

MAA FINFISHCONTIANMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

MAA SHELLFISHHEALTH AND BIOSECURITY AGREEMENT

MAA COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS• PATHOGEN SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS

• INTERGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN

• CONTIANMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

• FINFISH BAY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

• COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF PRACTICE

• SHELLFISH HEALTH AND BIOSECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

• BIOSECURITY AUDITS

Use of Plant Proteins – Major constraints • Protein content lower than animal proteins

• Imbalanced amino acids in plant protein

• High amount of carbohydrates

• Indigestible polysaccharides and sugars

• Inherent antinutritional factors, e. g.• Protease inhibitors• Goitrous glucosinolates• Agglutinating lectins• Antigenic proteins• Toxic gossypols • Phytic acid

MAINE AQUACULTUREGROWING MAINES FUTURE THROUGH THE RESPONSIBLE

STEWARDSHIP OF AQUATIC RESOURCES

• MAINE FISH FARMERS ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS

– FISHFARMERS ARE ON AND IN THE ENVIRONMENT EVERYDAY• MANY ARE TRAINED BIOLOGISTS• DAILY OBSERVERS OF ENVIROMENTAL CONDITIONS

– FISHFARMERS KNOWLEDGE AND FAMILARITY WITH STOCK IS POWERFULL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR

• CANARY IN THE MINE SHAFT• STUDENTS OF ANIMAL BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE

– LINKAGES BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMIC PERFOMANCE ARE MANY AND STRONG

• SUBLEATHAL IMPACTS ON ANIMAL PERFORMANCE DIRECTLY REFLECTED IN ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OF FARM

– CONVERSION RATIO– GROWTH RATES

– EXTERNALITIES ARE FEW AND EMPIRICAL DATA TO SUPPORT LINKAGES AREWEAK

CURRENT REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FOR MAINE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY

NATIONAL AUTHORITIES• National Marine Fisheries Service• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service• Army Corps of Engineers• Environmental Protection Agency• Department of Agriculture• U.S. Department of Commerce• U.S. Coast Guard• U.S Department of Labor• FDA• ISSC

REGIONAL AUTHORITIES• New England Fisheries Management Council• Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

STATE AUTHORITIES• Department of Environmental Protection• Department of Marine Resources• Inland Fish and Wildlife • Department of Agriculture• Department of Health and Human Services

• FEDERAL REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

• Clean Water Act• National Environmental Policy Act• Coastal Zone Management Act• Rivers and Harbors Act• Endangered Species Act• Lacey Act • Migratory Bird Treaty Act• Marine Mammal Protection Act• Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries &

Conservation Act• Sustainable Fisheries Act• Food Drug & Cosmetic Act• Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance

Prevention & Control Act• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act• Virus-Serum-Toxin Act• Federal Sanitation Standards (HACCP)

Regulations• National Marine Sanctuary Act.

MAINE STATE AQUACULTURE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

• AQUACULTURE LEASING PROGRAM

• DEP/DMR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM

• AQUACULTURE PRODUCTION MONITORING (FAMP)

• FISH HEALTH SURVELLIANCE AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM (USDA, IFW,DMR)

• BIOSECURITY AUDITING PROGRAM

• CONTIANMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AUDITING PROGRAM

• WATER CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

• MARINE BIOTOXINS MONITORING PROGRAM

• PUBLIC HEALTH / SEAFOOD SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAM

COASTAL COMMUNITY TRENDS• TRADITIONAL RESOURCE BASES SIGNIFICANTLY DEPLETED

• DRAMATIC INCREASES IN PROPERTY VALUES AND TAXES

• SIGNIFICANT POPULATION GROWTH WITH INCREASING % SENIORS

• COMMUNITIES INCREASINGLY BASED ON NON EXTRACTION RESOURCE USE (LIFESTYLE/TOURISM)

• NON-EXTRACTIVE RESOURCE USE SHIFTING FROM SUMMER ACTIVITY TO YEAR ROUND

• REDUCTION AND DISPLACEMENT OF TRADITIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS BASED ON NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION

SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS FORMAINE’S GROWING FUTURE